Are pro-capitalists heretics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fakename said:
This has been most enlightening, since I’ve mostly always held the attitude that whatever hurts you is probably close to morality. I had no idea that true ethics could be so easy to apply in everyday life.

Another question this time, about minimum wages. Isn’t it true that the utility and justice of minimum wages has always been a teaching upheld by the church as being within its non-infallible powers?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if the concept of a “minimum wage” is specifically spelled out in church documents.

What I believe is advocated is that workers rights should be respected - they should be paid a fair wage comiserate with the job and experience.
 
"I don’t know if the concept of a “minimum wage” is specifically spelled out in church documents.

What I believe is advocated is that workers rights should be respected - they should be paid a fair wage comiserate with the job and experience."

Oh, thanks. Is it just me or does the social teaching seem too strongly worded for the concept that is being promulgated? I mean, if you hear “just wage” you automatically think “minimum wage” and not “a fair wage comiserate with the job and experience”.
And using words like “capitalism” and “socialism” as if their meanings were uncontroversial also creates opposition to understanding.

Another question though: What is more just -to take food from a man when you are starving or to wait for him to employ you for food? What if you can’t wait? What if the man would’ve gladly given you food if you asked?
 
fakename said:
"I don’t know if the concept of a “minimum wage” is specifically spelled out in church documents.

What I believe is advocated is that workers rights should be respected - they should be paid a fair wage comiserate with the job and experience."

Oh, thanks. Is it just me or does the social teaching seem too strongly worded for the concept that is being promulgated? I mean, if you hear “just wage” you automatically think “minimum wage” and not “a fair wage comiserate with the job and experience”.
And using words like “capitalism” and “socialism” as if their meanings were uncontroversial also creates opposition to understanding.
Click to expand...
What you’ll find in church teach is a basic framework. We are to form our consciences to it, then use prudential judgment in it’s application. Or, so I am lead to believe.

Minimum wage is just one implementation of trying to pay people a “fair wage.” There could be other ways, such as unions and overtime pay. In the West, there are labor laws in an attempt to protect workers interests.
fakename said:
Another question though: What is more just -to take food from a man when you are starving or to wait for him to employ you for food? What if you can’t wait? What if the man would’ve gladly given you food if you asked?
Click to expand...
Why advocate stealing as the only alternative? Especially, in the West, there is a large enough saftey net, that no one is really forced to steal.

But, from a moral standpoint, lets take a look at what a mortal sin is:
  1. Objective wrong action.
  2. One knows it’s wrong
  3. You do it out of free will (no duress)
Stealing is always ojectively wrong as it is clearly spelled out in the 10 commandments. Secondly, most people know it is wrong, unless they are a young child or have a mental illness.

Where it fails mortal sin test is one could argue stealing in this case was done under duress. People tend to want to live, and one has to eat to live.
 
“Stealing is always ojectively wrong as it is clearly spelled out in the 10 commandments. Secondly, most people know it is wrong, unless they are a young child or have a mental illness.”

Well maybe stealing isn’t the right word for it. I think Thomas Aquinas proves that taking goods from someone when you are starving is not stealing but is simply approrpriating what is rightfully yours.

So minimum wage laws are just a practical application of the idea that “people should have a just wage”?
 
fakename said:
Well maybe stealing isn’t the right word for it. I think Thomas Aquinas proves that taking goods from someone when you are starving is not stealing but is simply approrpriating what is rightfully yours.
Click to expand...
But, I wouldn’t go out and do this, first thing.
fakename said:
So minimum wage laws are just a practical application of the idea that “people should have a just wage”?
Click to expand...
Could be considered so. I mean, do you think it would be wise to pay people $0.10 an hour to flip burgers at McDonalds (all other things being equal)?
 
“But, I wouldn’t go out and do this, first thing.”

So it is possible for something to be good but not the best?

"Could be considered so. I mean, do you think it would be wise to pay people $0.10 an hour to flip burgers at McDonalds (all other things being equal)? "

Obviously this would be unwise, I agree.
 
Mike_Dye said:
I think that the concept should not that difficult. First of all I am coming from a perspective of a guy that has not drawn a pay check in 35 or more years. I have been for the bulk of my life self employed.
I cannot imagine a better system than free market capitalism. Even for those that are employed. In a system where the bottom line is the bottom line, the employees that make the boss money are rewarded and the guys that want to play grab *ss all day shouldn’t benefit. You know your worth and what you can do. If you are not compensated adequately, leave and go to the competition. I know this is an oversimplification of the question but the basic concept is true.
Click to expand...
Well said.

Capitalism is a product of a Christian tradition. Capitalism is a transactional system. Transactions should be mutually beneficial and carried out with Christian charity and magnanimiity. Christianity has a history of charitable behaviour. If society behaved in the Christian manner that is its hallmark, then charity would be in abundance and the weak and disadvantaged would have nothing to fear. Governments cannot legislate “charity”. If they try then the will have actually weaken Christianity. The aim should be to revive Christian principles and the less well off will be better off.

Pope Leo XIII in his 1891 Encyclical “Rerum Novarum”, stated that socialism does not help the poor. It reduces everyone to the same lowest common denominator of poverty and misery, while at the same time drying up the very sources of capital.
 
A unequivocal “Yes” or “No” question going on for five pages? Must not have been unequivocal. 🙂

My answer is “No”.

There’s a huge, active, thread on Socialism here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408396

It’s a very long read but it might provide some answers instead of going down the path of reinventing the wheel.
 
“It’s a very long read but it might provide some answers instead of going down the path of reinventing the wheel.”

It’s easier for me to reivent the wheel since the process of construction takes ideas from both social teaching and capitalism. A thread on why socialism is wrong/good however seems to already imply a certain definition of the word “capitalism” and a definition is precisely what I’m trying to create here. (It’s precisely what I don’t have)
 
It’s your topic. Maybe this one is a better wheel.

That topic was pointed out because the discussion on that thread is fairly intense and several sides are represented and no side is only Catholic. Different nationalities are represented as well, supporting or not-supporting Socialism. Capitalism, Socialism and other forms of government are covered. Lots of history, scripture, and teachings are discussed and dissected.
 
“That topic was pointed out because the discussion on that thread is fairly intense and several sides are represented and no side is only Catholic. Different nationalities are represented as well, supporting or not-supporting Socialism. Capitalism, Socialism and other forms of government are covered. Lots of history, scripture, and teachings are discussed and dissected”

So basically, the social teachings just say that if there is any social system it must have at least some private property? The rest is just political judgement?

That’s what I got from the thread. (again, then we get into the whole question of what is private property etc, etc.)
 
Adam Smith said that economic growth is the product of five things:
  1. Private property
  2. Free markets
  3. Limited civil government
  4. Accumulation of capital
  5. An increase in the division of labor
What was Adam Smith’s key insight? Both parties to an exchange can benefit so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary.

The difference between a command (socialist) economy and a market economy is incentives.
 
fakename said:
“But, I wouldn’t go out and do this, first thing.”

So it is possible for something to be good but not the best?

"Could be considered so. I mean, do you think it would be wise to pay people $0.10 an hour to flip burgers at McDonalds (all other things being equal)? "

Obviously this would be unwise, I agree.
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed, it is possible for something to be good but not the best. For example, the church holds that natural marriage is good, but sacramental marriage is better (the ‘best’, in this context).

Perhaps taking food to save one’s life could be a good, but asking for food from those who would freely give it is the best.
 
One final question: what is the catholic teaching on the purpose and nature of the state? From other thread I gather that there isn’t one but the popes issue the state duties so this implies that there must be a state.
 
"Authority is exercised legitimately if it is committed to the common good of society. To attain this it must employ morally acceptable means. "

Well this is why I asked the question, because I don’t think that the state per se, can produce the common good of society. In which case I would be against the state yet that would contradict

“It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society.”

A little help here?
 
fakename said:
"Authority is exercised legitimately if it is committed to the common good of society. To attain this it must employ morally acceptable means. "

Well this is why I asked the question, because I don’t think that the state per se, can produce the common good of society. In which case I would be against the state yet that would contradict

“It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society.”

A little help here?
Click to expand...
Role of the government is to defend and ensure the rights of people are not being abused.

I think this is illustrated by the original intent of the Founding Fathers of the US - not that they were Catholic per se, but wanted a limited federal government that protected its citizens.
 
“Role of the government is to defend and ensure the rights of people are not being abused.”

One could argue that government has no incentives to protect people.
 
The incentive is to do a good job so as to not get voted out of public office by the people.

A despot doesn’t have to do a good job or be concerned about votes or the people – just has to avoid being killed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top